Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (149961)	11/1/2004 6:44:47 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) of 281500

The point is that you changed the subject, in order to accuse me of avoiding the matter, which I have never done. I even posted for your benefit a summary I generally accept, with a couple of comments, so your crowing is inappropriate. I have published similar material on this thread before. Finally, you are mistaken to characterize such maneuvers as being particularly "neocon", as I tried to explain in my posted comments. The premises were "realist", a la Kissinger, not "neoconservative". What is new is the attempt by the neoconservatives to make foreign policy comport more with our ideals as a nation. But, as I also noted in my comments, no one who can accept alliances with Stalin or with Mao under circumstances can automatically condemn tilting to Saddam when strategic concerns seemed to dictate it, so I accept "realist" premises up to a point. To you it is taking Reagan down a peg. To me it is demonstration of why he was a greater president than Carter.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next